S. Subramaniam Balaji V. Government Of Tamil Nadu (2013)

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5130 Of 2013

My analysis addresses a significant concern regarding the ethical implications of political campaigning, particularly the manipulation of voters through false promises.

The use of misleading electoral messages not only threatens the democratic process but also diminishes public confidence in political systems. When politicians fail to deliver on insincere commitments, it can foster a sense of disillusionment among voters, leading to increased apathy and disengagement from elections.

The legal framework established by the Representation of the People Act, especially Section 123, plays a vital role in addressing these challenges. By defining false promises and misleading tactics as corrupt practices, the law aims to safeguard electoral integrity. The Supreme Court's recent discussions indicate a growing awareness of the need to hold candidates accountable for their promises, emphasizing that electoral pledges should be genuine and attainable.

The real challenge lies in the effective enforcement of these legal standards and ensuring that voters are well-informed about their rights. Empowering voters in this way can help them make educated choices and hold politicians responsible for their actions and commitments. Ultimately, promoting a culture of transparency and accountability in political communication is essential for strengthening the foundations of democracy.

Historical Background:
During the lead-up to the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections in 2006 and 2011, several political parties unveiled their election manifestos featuring ambitious schemes promising free distribution of items such as colour television sets (CTVs), grinders, mixers, electric fans, laptop computers, and even four-gram gold thalis. These announcements aimed to appeal to voters by offering tangible benefits that could enhance their quality of life. However, the financial implications of such schemes raised significant legal and ethical questions.

In this context, Balaji, a concerned resident of Tamil Nadu, took a stand against these initiatives by challenging the legitimacy of the schemes in the Madras High Court. He argued that the expenditures to be incurred by the State from the public exchequer were "unauthorized, impermissible, and ultra vires the constitutional mandates." His challenge highlighted concerns over the proper use of state funds and whether these promises aligned with the constitutional principles governing public expenditure.

Balaji's case underscored the broader implications of using state resources for electoral gain. He contended that the promises made in the election manifestos not only posed financial risks to the state budget but also threatened the principles of accountability and governance. His challenge raised important questions about the legality of such populist schemes and whether they could be justified within the framework of the Constitution.

As the court deliberated on this matter, it faced the complex task of balancing electoral promises with the necessity of fiscal responsibility and adherence to constitutional mandates. The outcome of this legal battle would have implications not only for the specific schemes in question but also for the broader discourse on the ethics of political campaigning and the role of state resources in elections.

Issues:

1. Whether the promises made by the political parties in the election manifesto would amount to 'corrupt practices' as per Section 123 of the RP Act?
2. Whether the schemes under challenge are within the ambit of public purpose and if yes, is it violative of Article 14?
3. Whether this Court has inherent power to issue guidelines by application of Vishaka principle?
4. Whether the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has a duty to examine expenditures even before they are deployed?
5. Whether the writ jurisdiction will lie against a political party?

Petitioner's contentions:

• He argued that the State cannot act in furtherance of "eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy."
• He argued that the promises of free distribution of non-essential commodities in an election manifesto amount to electoral bribe under Section 123 of the RP Act.
• The distribution of goods to certain sections of people was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Respondent's contentions:

• It countered that promises of political parties do not constitute corrupt practices. Political parties are not the State and 'freebies' is a nebulous term which has no legal status.
• The promises implemented by the party after forming the government are an obligation under the Directives Principles of State Policy. The State is only doing its duty to promote the welfare of its people.
• The promises are implemented by framing various schemes/guidelines/eligibility criteria, etc., as well as with the approval of the legislature. Thus, it cannot be construed as a waste of public money or be prohibited by any statute or scheme.

Judgement:
The court's judgment held that promises by a political party cannot constitute a 'corrupt practice' on its part. It would be "misleading" to construe that all promises in the election manifesto would amount to corrupt practice. The manifesto of a political party is a statement of its policy. The question of implementing the manifesto arises only if the political party forms a government. However, the court agreed that freebies create an "uneven playing field." It had asked the Election Commission of India to consult political parties and issue guidelines on the election manifesto and make it a part of the Model Code of Conduct.

Analysis:
According to Section 171,
Anyone who voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offense of undue influence at an election.
A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed interference within the meaning of this section.
Similarly, the proviso of Section 170 regarding bribery states that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be considered an offense under this section.

In Section 171(3), the requirement for intent may pose challenges. Assessing intent can be subjective and open to interpretation, potentially allowing actions that disrupt elections to go unchecked if the intent is not clear. All political parties make promises intending to influence voters. When these promises turn out to be false, there should be accountability.

This provision may create a loophole for those in power to exploit legal rights or public policy declarations to subtly sway elections. By framing their actions as legitimate, they could conceal ulterior motives that influence voter behaviour. Therefore, it is essential to penalize false promises.

However, in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2013), the Supreme Court concluded that not every promise made in an election manifesto can be categorized as a corrupt practice. Some developmental promises may not fall under this classification. Determining which promises can be included in an election manifesto is beyond the purview of judicial scrutiny, as it relates to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs).

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the State to assess these matters, considering its financial capacity and the needs of the populace, while the court's role remains limited in this context. Nonetheless, the court recognized that the distribution of freebies does influence voter behaviour and significantly undermines the principle of free and fair elections. It directed the Election Commission to formulate appropriate guidelines under the Model Code of Conduct, exercising its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, which mandates the Commission to uphold electoral integrity.

Furthermore, in Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that election manifestos are unenforceable against political parties. In 2017, during a high-profile seminar, Justice J. S. Khehar, then Chief Justice of India, lamented that election promises often go unfulfilled and that manifestos had become "mere pieces of paper." He emphasized that political parties must be held accountable in such situations, criticizing their "brazen" excuses, such as lack of consensus among members, for not fulfilling their poll promises.

False promises, including those offering freebies, clearly impact the electorate. The moral code of conduct established by the Election Commission states that "distribution of freebies of any kind undoubtedly influences all people and undermines the integrity of free and fair elections." Such promises can significantly weaken the foundation of democratic processes. Moreover, frequent promises of freebies may divert funds from other essential schemes, leading to budgetary shortfalls.

Ultimately, the promise of freebies often manipulates voters into supporting those who make such offers, which constitutes undue influence. This was highlighted in the case of V.P. Ammavasai v. The Chief Election Commissioner on April 4, 2019. Mr. V.P. Ammavasai filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Chief Election Commissioner and the State Election Commissioner of Tamil Nadu to act against the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), represented by Mr. O. Panneer Selvam, for violating the Model Code of Conduct.

The petitioner argued that AIADMK issued an election manifesto on February 19, 2019, promising ₹1,500 to individuals below the poverty line, including destitute women and widows. He contended that this promise was misleading, particularly given the party's failure to pay government employee retirement benefits amid a budget deficit of ₹3.5 lakh crores. Despite submitting a detailed representation on March 20, 2019, no action was taken by the Election Commissioners.

The judgment emphasized that political parties have the right to make electoral promises, including welfare measures, if they do not amount to corruption or undue influence. However, the court recognized that misleading promises could impact the electoral process and stressed the need for greater transparency and accountability. While the Election Commission should take steps to maintain electoral integrity, it must also consider the rights of political parties to campaign.

In Najma v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2021), the Chief Minister was held accountable for promises made during his term. In this case, Arvind Kejriwal promised relief for tenants unable to pay rent due to poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in numerous petitions for enforceability. This raised the question of whether promises made in an election manifesto could be made enforceable as well. However, the court upheld prior judgments on this matter.

In a recent case (2024), the counsel argued that commitments made by a political party in its manifesto, leading to direct or indirect financial assistance to the public, would constitute corrupt practices by candidates of that party. The Bench observed that this argument was too far-fetched to be accepted, and the Supreme Court dismissed it.

Conclusion:
It is imperative to issue an order preventing political parties in power from making "irrational freebies" promises, as these fall under undue influence, bribery, and false statements. There is a need for the inclusion of false promises under Section 175 of the BNS. The judgment reaffirmed that political parties can make electoral promises, including welfare measures, provided they do not amount to corruption or undue influence.

However, the court acknowledged that misleading promises could negatively affect the electoral process, highlighting the need for enhanced transparency and accountability. While the Election Commission must take steps to uphold electoral integrity, it must also balance this with the rights of political parties to campaign. Written By: Vethika Sri, 2nd year of 5-year B.A., LL. B (hons), Sastra Deemed University, Thanjavur.